Peabody settles on Kentucky for possi...

Peabody settles on Kentucky for possible coal plant

There are 19 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Oct 29, 2007, titled Peabody settles on Kentucky for possible coal plant. In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

LOUISVILLE, Ky. - Peabody Energy and ConocoPhillips have settled on Kentucky -- and not Illinois -- for a proposed $3 billion plant that would convert coal into a cleaner-burning synthetic natural gas and ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

Python

Westmont, IL

#1 Oct 29, 2007
I hope everybody sees this for what it is. Simply said a failure of our state government. Where in other states to raise revenue they stimulate the economy. In Illinois they just raise taxes. I wonder will we ever learn.
joe schmo

Chicago, IL

#2 Oct 29, 2007
Well, If Illinois wasn't such an expensive place to do business, then maybe they would have choosen a site in Illinois
Bear With Us

Chicago, IL

#3 Oct 29, 2007
"Peabody had considered several sites in Illinois, Kentucky and Indiana for the proposed plant. But the search was narrowed to Kentucky after the state Economic Development Finance Authority agreed last week to provide Peabody $250 million in tax incentives. "

Yeah, that'll certainly tip the scales.

That's fine with me. We Illinoisians just don't need any more sweet tax break deals doled out to attract more grunt jobs. Let the southern states take that stuff.
Bob

North Chicago, IL

#4 Oct 29, 2007
Bear With Us wrote:
"Peabody had considered several sites in Illinois, Kentucky and Indiana for the proposed plant. But the search was narrowed to Kentucky after the state Economic Development Finance Authority agreed last week to provide Peabody $250 million in tax incentives. "
Yeah, that'll certainly tip the scales.
That's fine with me. We Illinoisians just don't need any more sweet tax break deals doled out to attract more grunt jobs. Let the southern states take that stuff.
COSIGN...And people wonder why politicians are asking us to foot the bill with higher taxes.
Steve

Trenton, NJ

#5 Oct 29, 2007
Our state government in action ... or better inaction on revenue/tax generating activity and bye & bye what would the long term tax "benefits" be towards ever-increasing appetite for spending?

And who thinks that state representives (elected and appointed) were minding the economic growth prospects for IL in this latest "right-thinking" executive and economic development groups?

Just an observation by a tax-payer.
PGM

United States

#6 Oct 29, 2007
Guess Illinois didn't want it that bad. More jobs lost and less revenue. Nice job Gov B and the state legislature. So much time wasted fighting about the budget that you missed a chance for new tax revenue.
Doug Masters

Dawson Springs, KY

#7 Oct 29, 2007
Geez, and if we got the flippin' plant, you same people would be complaining about another way to ruin the environment. Just admit you still live at home, will never be satisfied and will cry about someone else's spilled milk.
bob

Westmont, IL

#8 Oct 29, 2007
Bear With Us wrote:
"Peabody had considered several sites in Illinois, Kentucky and Indiana for the proposed plant. But the search was narrowed to Kentucky after the state Economic Development Finance Authority agreed last week to provide Peabody $250 million in tax incentives. "
Yeah, that'll certainly tip the scales.
That's fine with me. We Illinoisians just don't need any more sweet tax break deals doled out to attract more grunt jobs. Let the southern states take that stuff.
gee how upity can bear with us be.hey dude think about all the grunts that make your day possible.without grunts you might have to fend for yourself and what a train wreck that would be
DaveK

United States

#9 Oct 29, 2007
"Peabody is the world's largest private-sector coal company ...Its coal products fuel approximately 10 percent of all U.S. electricity."

Which, pro-rated means about 20% of the CO2 global warming gas from the energy sector. Not a wise thing to hitch one's economic well-being to.

While perhaps for the wrong or inept reasons, Illinois NOT getting these coal industry plants will be a blessing in disguise. As soon as carbon is taxed as a global warming contributor, the demand is going to fall. Worse, as we have already seen in Illinois in 2005-06 and in Ohio and much of the southeast in 2007, in a global warming world where water will be much more scarce, coal-fired and nuclear plants built on our river systems will experience huge operating disruptions, if not outright shut downs forced by the thermal pollution they contribute to the river systems. There go the many jobs and taxes everyone is being promised.

Illinois needs energy jobs based in the expanding renewable energy sector, expecially those not based on steam-cycle electricity production like coal and nuclear plants. These jobs should by priority first go to the state regions that will experience coal and fossil-fuel industry collapse -- namely southern Illinois. This will provide more economic stability by softening the resulting and inevitable job losses in the fossil-fuel sector; and provide new jobs in emerging and expanding industries in the renewables and efficiency energy sectors, stable long-term jobs that will not blow away when the construction phase stops.

To invest in anything else at this time would be economic (and environmental) suicide, if not criminal negligence and fraud on the poor suckers who take the bait and compete to site these soon-to-be-obsolete energy dinosaurs.
JBS

Huntley, IL

#10 Oct 29, 2007
No, Doug Masters, I would not be complaining about "another way to ruin the environment." This NextGen coal plant is a step in the right direction, helping us to more cleanly exploit our country's largest domestic energy source, coal. So, in actuality, it doesn't really matter where it goes, only that it gets built. But it would have been nice for this to be built here in Illinois. And it's only par for the course that the jokers running the state let it go. Oh, and for those posting here who live in the Chicago area where jobs are plentiful, the folks downstate would really appreciate those "grunt jobs."
Pete

Alsip, IL

#11 Oct 29, 2007
I echo Doug's sentiment relating to the environmental aspect. At least the politicians in Kentucky could see the cost/benefit of bringing in new business vs the pollution that will accompany it. Remember a few months back when BP announced it was going to upgrade the Whiting refinery ? No one cared about the benefits of cheaper gas, lower dependence on foreign oil, or new jobs, it was just about the increased pollution. But now people are complaining about NOT getting a new source of pollution ? The way people seem to flip-flop back and forth makes me think that our fine Illinois politicians are the ones posting these responses.
Shayne

Australia

#12 Oct 30, 2007
DaveK wrote:
"Peabody is the world's largest private-sector coal company ...Its coal products fuel approximately 10 percent of all U.S. electricity."
Which, pro-rated means about 20% of the CO2 global warming gas from the energy sector. Not a wise thing to hitch one's economic well-being to.
While perhaps for the wrong or inept reasons, Illinois NOT getting these coal industry plants will be a blessing in disguise. As soon as carbon is taxed as a global warming contributor, the demand is going to fall. Worse, as we have already seen in Illinois in 2005-06 and in Ohio and much of the southeast in 2007, in a global warming world where water will be much more scarce, coal-fired and nuclear plants built on our river systems will experience huge operating disruptions, if not outright shut downs forced by the thermal pollution they contribute to the river systems. There go the many jobs and taxes everyone is being promised.
Illinois needs energy jobs based in the expanding renewable energy sector, expecially those not based on steam-cycle electricity production like coal and nuclear plants. These jobs should by priority first go to the state regions that will experience coal and fossil-fuel industry collapse -- namely southern Illinois. This will provide more economic stability by softening the resulting and inevitable job losses in the fossil-fuel sector; and provide new jobs in emerging and expanding industries in the renewables and efficiency energy sectors, stable long-term jobs that will not blow away when the construction phase stops.
To invest in anything else at this time would be economic (and environmental) suicide, if not criminal negligence and fraud on the poor suckers who take the bait and compete to site these soon-to-be-obsolete energy dinosaurs.
Since peabody is a coal company there is buckleys they will go out of business. The funding they are doing for the Nextgen will ensure coal stays a major player in energy generation. Why? Because it's cheap to convert. Only the Al Gore alarmist that make bucket loads out of scaring people can afford expensive energy so he can leave the lights on we he's not home. As for the rest of us we want cheap energy.
SOI

Cincinnati, OH

#13 Nov 1, 2007
There's no such thing as clean coal.

Since: Apr 07

Hermosillo, Mexico

#14 Nov 1, 2007
SOI : Just to set the record straight - you need to define the word clean before you go and make a blanket statement about the cleanliness of coal .

It is a matter of relativity . There is clean coal and there is "clean coal" or "clean" coal .

Clean coal is the name attributed to coal chemically washed of minerals and impurities,

The coal industry uses the term "clean coal" to describe technologies designed to enhance both the efficiency and the environmental acceptability of coal extraction, preparation and use[1], with no specific quantitative limits on any emissions, particularly carbon dioxide.

The United Nations Clean Development Mechanism (UN CDM) rules have been amended so that “clean” coal (and other fossil fuel) power plants which meet efficiency standards can sell Certified Emission Reduction (CER) credits to help fund their efforts.

Dominion is allowed to call the power plant a "clean coal" operation under rules laid down by the U.S. Department of Energy, which is encouraging utilities to use certain coal technologies by giving the technologies the environmentally friendly sticker.

So now you know that you have to qualify your clean .
bill

Port Republic, VA

#15 Dec 8, 2007
Sleibhin you amaze me and someway I would like to swap historys you are an educated person this is evident. I have a lifetime envested in the coal industry, production and in the safety field.
William Station Survivor

Tennyson, IN

#16 Dec 8, 2007
Bear With Us commented...

"That's fine with me. We Illinoisians just don't need any more sweet tax break deals doled out to attract more grunt jobs. Let the southern states take that stuff."

Grunt jobs???

All because you dont have the guts to put on a pair of steeltoes and a hard hat and ill bet shaking hands with you would be like touching a babies butt you big soft sissy.

DaveK...i read your post and i cant help but wonder. Are you one of the "rocket scientists" who helped the intellectualy superior entity aka Al Gore invent the internet...ROFLMFAO!!!

Power plants are now capable of burning coal with 70% less emissions than thirty years ago. That is a whole 70% in thirty years and 70 % is darn big reduction. That equals out to a ratio of 20% per ten year period. And with the technology we have now that was not available thirty and twenty years ago surely we can easily surpass another 20% in the next ten years. This should mean an additional 20%+ reduction by the year 2017.

Since: Apr 07

Hermosillo, Mexico

#17 Dec 9, 2007
bill wrote:
Sleibhin you amaze me and someway I would like to swap historys you are an educated person this is evident. I have a lifetime envested in the coal industry, production and in the safety field.
bill : Thanks for the kind words . I started doing the editing on this page because I thought that the robologger was ill programed and that at times was a fine example of " garbage in garbage out " . When I have time I will give you my thoughts on coal mines . In the meantime with your and other miners' help we will attempt to educate the coal miners and other miners also that their lives are on the line if they don't Practice Safety First and report all hazardous conditions and safety violations and above all any corruption in the inspection of coal mines .
kentucky wise

Glasgow, KY

#18 Dec 27, 2008
Python wrote:
I hope everybody sees this for what it is. Simply said a failure of our state government. Where in other states to raise revenue they stimulate the economy. In Illinois they just raise taxes. I wonder will we ever learn.
Maybe it might teach Illinois that bringing jobs does not always need corruption to do business...besides we here in kentucky still know manners..
not

Mount Vernon, KY

#19 Dec 29, 2008
"Peabody had considered several sites in Illinois, Kentucky and Indiana for the proposed plant. But the search was narrowed to Kentucky after the state Economic Development Finance Authority agreed last week to provide Peabody $250 million in tax incentives.

and kentucky wonders why there in a deficit? hummm...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

ConocoPhillips Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News ConocoPhillips: Dividend Obsession Hurts The Co... (Jul '15) Jul '15 UnCoverUp 1
News Bankrupt gasoline distributor's ex-president sa... (May '09) Jun '15 slappy 133
News Two oil companies fined millions for waste viol... (May '15) May '15 Fertilizing Divid... 1
News Benefits of Turbo tax. (Dec '13) Dec '13 Laureen Barger 1
News Iran Wants U.S. Firms to Develop Oil Fields (Dec '13) Dec '13 Pic 3
Union 76 oil (Mar '06) Oct '13 Dean Sullivan 15
Industry Touts Major Mancos Shale Play: Estimat... (Mar '13) Mar '13 John Ford 1
More from around the web